3D HDTVs look better than 3D in theaters???

[cybereality]

I just got back from my local BestBuy, and I got a chance to test some more high-end 3D HDTVs. I am pretty impressed. The first set I saw was Samsung UN46C8000, which was simply amazing. Unfortunately they didn't have any glasses, so I just watched some 2D Blu-Ray content. But the quality was unbelievable. 1080P never looked so good. And the 240Hz refresh was for real. I have seen some of this interpolation before, and it looked bad, but I take back everything I ever said. This "smooth-motion" or whatever they call it actually works. I kid you not, it looked smoother than real life. No joke. I couldn't believe how smooth it was. The resolution and colors were also top-notch. I would have loved to see some 3D content on this baby.

There were a few various models 3D TVs showing 3D content, but with missing glasses. Sucks.

Next up was the Panasonic VT25, which is great, and I have raved about it in many threads. Still looked as good as I remember.

However one I had not was this Sony XBR60LX900. This is hands down the best 3D I have ever seen in my whole life (though at $4,500 it almost has to). I could not believe my eyes. The resolution was ultra-crisp, super detailed. Anyone who tries to tell you that 720P is good enough has not seen this TV. The 240Hz motion also looked legit, unlike previous attempts in the past (although Sony's interpolation was not nearly as good as the Samsung). The 3D demo reel had a variety of content: PS3 games, Blu-Ray 3D, World Cup, etc. I was particularly impressed by MotorStorm. The 3D effect did look much nicer than what I've seen on the PC (although the 60" screen size didn't hurt this). The sports clips weren't all that impressive, although some shots looked alright. However once they started showing 3D Blu-Ray, I was blown away. I could not believe my eyes. They had about a 5 minute scene from Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. This looked unbelievable, I was seeing insane depth and even some pop-out. The crazy part is that I have this movie on 3D Blu-Ray, and it doesn't look no where close to as good on the Zalman Trimon. I am not just talking about the resolution, the 3D effect was not the same. On Zalman the 3D is very mild for this movie (and most 3D movies in general). On this TV it looked spectacular. I don't think its just a matter of the screen size either. I saw Cloudy w/ Meatballs in the RealD theaters, and it didn't even looks as impressive there. I am not kidding, this TV was more sick than even the RealD theaters. How is this possible??? This was the first time I got to see content on a modern 3D HDTV that I have actually seen before on other platforms (at home on Zalman, and in RealD theaters). So it was easy to make a direct comparison. And I am certain, it looked the best on this Sony TV. They also showed off Alice in Wonderland, another movie I saw in theaters and have at home. It looked far more "3D" than I have ever seen it before. How can a 60" TV have more 3D effect than a movie theater? Any theories here?

[Likay]

Nice reviews! It seems like tv's really are catching up in quality as well. Time looking into a 3dtv when similar models arrive in boutiques here!

How can a 60" TV have more 3D effect than a movie theater? Any theories here?

I have absolutely no idea else than the image is looking superb. Theoretically you get more 3d-info from a stereoframe than a monoframe but it's sort of hard figuring it's implemented on the fly on a tv. It's not impossible though...

[phil]

How can a 60" TV have more 3D effect than a movie theater? Any theories here?

Hmm, that's got me thinking... In theory, the blu-ray versions of these CG films could be completely re-rendered with the stereo configured for a 60" screen rather than a cinema screen. Doing that would maximise the stereo for viewing on a TV, without altering the original convergence plane distances of each shot. It's just like the screen-size parameter in 3D games, which is used in conjunction with the camera FOV values to calculate the camera spacing that puts the convergence plane where it should be while creating the full range of depth in the background.

From the result you're describing, it sounds like that's what they've started doing It certainly makes perfect sense, don't you think?

[cybereality]

Yeah, I did wonder if they re-rendered it for the demo. I mean, it was a Sony movie on a Sony TV. They certainly could have optimized it. And it was only a 5 minute scene, so its possible they just rendered that scene (and not the whole movie). But why wouldn't they have done that for the 3D Blu-Ray release? And it doesn't explain why Alice in Wonderland also looked better. In that case it was live-action so it's not really possible to re-render that (technically it was a conversion, but re-converting parts of the movie would be difficult and time-consuming). So I am pretty sure what I saw was just scenes from the actual 3D Blu-Ray. Though I would have to have the set in my house to verify this first hand.

[tritosine5G]

The 240hz stuff is not real . Im so tired of that sh*t.

With 240hz , You basically said you prefer 4mS hold time, and flicker looks good to you.

So we can now ignore the passive 3d hype of yours? Now that 4mS hold time looks good?


-it doesn't take 240hz to do motion interpolation. With 24hz 30hz materialf , the initial refresh rate is SO FUCKN LOW, even only +1 added frame is percieved as smoother .

What they do: insert only one extra frame (30 -> 60hz) , redraw these frames subsequently (no interpolation) 60->120hz. Now . Blank the frames for half duration, cut them in half.

120hz frame length becomes 8mS -> 4mS .

There you have your 240hz. 240hz frame length is 4mS, but what you REALLY have is interpolated (60hz + FLICKER)*2 .

You get better results if you use avisynth on PC, and use a quad core CPU to compute true 120hz intermittent frames, instead of 1 added frame.

I'd avoid using sentences like infitely smooth, these are just trade offs you can do because you are in digital realm. CRT is still better.

[cybereality]

The 240hz stuff is not real . Im so tired of that sh*t.

Yes, that is what I thought until I saw the Samsung UN46C8000. And I have seen other older sets with this feature and they looked like crap, that I agree on. But the technology has advanced. If you don't want to believe me, go to your local Best Buy and see if they have this model on display. It has a chrome bezel, its easy to spot in the crowd. I'm telling you. It appears smoother than real-life. I don't know how that is possible, but it did. And it was showing a Blu-Ray disc, so I assume it was doing some 24Hz -> 240Hz interpolation. It was not just adding 9 repeated frames or whatever you are suggesting. With moving objects you could clearly see a nice smooth motion.

[Chiefwinston]

I hate to rain on the parade. But these are all the same sets that have been on the market since the dawn of HDMI 1.4. But hey new discovery- the 3d is actually quite good now. Hahhhaha that's funny.

Cheers everyone

[Chiefwinston]

And for what it's worth. It's the black levels these new displays are capable of. That makes the 3d blu-rays really pop. Black levels really are important to high quality 3d.

Cheers everyone